Here on the sixth day of net work, I thought it would be good to revisit a key piece of the organizational network analysis literature. In all my posts, I take for granted that readers here understand that we must understand networks in order to work and be successfully and effectively at work and in the world.Taking networks for granted may imply, for some people, that they think they understand how networks work, including the informal organizational networks in large organizations.

Rob Cross, before the social network frenzy, identified six myths of informal networks. Coauthors Nitin Nohria and Andrew Parker worked with Rob to refine our understanding of how to counteract these myths in a Sloan Management Review article in 2002.

Myths and counter-arguments:

• To build better networks, we have to communicate more. Actually, what we need is a lower quantity of information, and more targeted, filtered information to the people who need it.
• Everyone should be connected to everyone else. What a jumble the world would be if we tried to be connected with everyone. Consider how much difficulty we have now trying to keep up with our extending networks in FB, Twitter, and so on.
• We can’t do much to aid informal networks.  I wrote an entire book on ways that networks can be supported and sustained. Informal networks need management to give them an environment in which connection and collaboration are fluid, valued, enabled with appropriate tools.
• How people fit in to networks is all a matter of personality (which can’t be changed).  When we talk about successful personal networks, we are not talking about extroverts who excel at “networking events,” but serious professionals who deliberate and carefully create and manage relationships
• Central people who have become bottlenecks should make themselves more accessible. Accessible to more people? How does that remove a bottleneck? How about a central person works at brokering introductions to move knowledge around the network and shifts responsibilities by delegating certain knowledge areas to others?
• I already know what is going on in my network. Social/organizational network analysis practitioners know full well that a map of an organizational network always contains surprises. Sure, savvy executives may have some insights, but will always welcome the detailed analysis that includes metrics that lead to action.

Isn’t it time to start a list of myths about social media networks? Here are a few to get started. What are yours?

• The number of people you follow or who follow you on Twitter is an indication of how influential you are. Actuallyi influence is a complicated calculation that takes into account not just who follows you, but who follows them, the number of people reached, frequency of tweeting, responses, etc. See  Twinfluence’s top 50 by the “reach” metrics. (Metrics are fully explained here.)
• Social networking sites are for the younger generations. Most of the people I follow are in my own age bracket, which I’ll place at 50+, plus have you looked at LinkedIn lately?
• You can’t build quality relationships online. Many of my professional and family relationships are richer, broader, and tighter because of our online connections. (Thanks to Digital Labz via Social Computing Magazine for this one.)

Here are some corporate social media network myths from Andrew Gent:

• Use of social networking sites negatively impacts employees’ performance at work. How about some of the positive aspects of using social networks, like the way that 70% of nGenera’s 91 hires over the last year came from employee and recruiter social networks?
• Employers troll social networking sites to checkout potential employee. Maybe some managers with too much time on their hands, but shouldn’t managers be encouraging people to reach out, extend their networks so that more ideas and brains can be access to solve hard problems?

Recounting:

• Five purposes
• Four design facets
• Three network tools
• Two network sources
• One network lens